Tag: employment

Non-Negotiable Arbitration Agreements May Be Required as a Condition of Employment

On February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit struck down AB 51, a California statute that imposed criminal and civil penalties against employers who required employees to enter into an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment, finding the statute to be an “unacceptable obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).  Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. Bonta, et al., No. 20-15291 (9th Cir. 2023).

As discussed in our prior post and articles (link here), in August 2022 the Ninth Circuit withdrew its prior decision, which had upheld portions of AB 51, following the United States Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana.

AB 51, embodied in California Labor Code §432.6 effective January 1, 2020, prohibited an employer from entering into a non-negotiable agreement that required the employee to waive “any right, forum, or procedure” for a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code, including “the right to file and pursue a civil action.”  Further, AB 51 imposed harsh penalties for employers who violated the statute, including a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months’ imprisonment, as well as the potential for civil litigation by the State of California or by private individuals.  In an effort to avoid Supreme Court decisions striking down state laws that improperly targeted arbitration agreements, the California legislature also created the confusing outcome that potentially criminalized the formation of non-negotiable arbitration agreements, but permitted their enforcement once executed.

Noting that arbitration agreements by their very nature require parties to waive their rights to bring disputes in court, and crediting the plaintiffs’ evidence that the possible imposition of civil and criminal penalties deterred employers from attempting to enter into non-negotiable agreements with employees, the court affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction in favor of several trade associations and business groups who sought to block the implementation of the statute.  Relying on principles of preemption and judicial precedent striking down similar state laws or judge-made rules that singled out executed arbitration agreements, the Court found AB 51 improperly “burden[s]” the formation of arbitration agreements in violation of the FAA.

Having written the previous 2-1 decision upholding AB 51, Judge Lucero now found himself dissenting.  Arguing that the majority “misconstrue[d] the jurisprudence” of the Supreme Court, the dissent claimed that arbitration was permissible only if consensual and that AB 51 only applied to conduct occurring prior to the formation of the contract and thus was not an obstacle to the objectives of the FAA.

Employers may require their California employees to sign non-negotiable arbitration agreements to obtain or maintain their employment.  Arbitration agreements may still be unenforceable however if they are procedurally and substantively unconscionable, if the agreement lacks mutual consent because a party was forced to sign by threats or physical coercion or “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”  Thus, employers should review their agreements to ensure they are in compliance with other California requirements, that the terms are not unfair or one-sided, and, the agreement presented is not unfair, surprising or oppressive.

Article By Sheryl L. Skibbe of Vedder Price

For more arbitration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Vedder Price

Biden Administration Sets New Course on ESG Investing in Retirement Plans

In late 2022, the Department of Labor finalized a new rule titled “Prudence in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights,” largely reversing Trump-era guidance that had strictly limited the ability of plan fiduciaries to consider “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) factors in selecting retirement plan investments and generally discouraged the exercise of proxy voting. In short, the new rule allows a fiduciary to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options, provided that the selection serves the financial interests of the plan and its participants over an appropriate time horizon, and encourages fiduciaries to engage in proxy voting.

The final rule moves away from 2020 Trump-era rulemaking by allowing more leeway for fiduciaries to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options. Specifically, the rule states that a “fiduciary’s duty of prudence must be based on factors that the fiduciary reasonably determines are relevant to a risk and return analysis and that such factors may include the economic effects of climate change and other ESG considerations on the particular investment or investment course of action.” The rule makes clear, however, that there is no requirement to affirmatively consider ESG factors, effectively limiting its scope and effect and putting the onus on fiduciaries to determine whether they want to incorporate ESG factors into their assessments of competing investments.

Overview

  • Similar to the Trump-era guidance, there is no definition of “ESG” or an “ESG”-style fund. Debate continues over what kinds of funds can be considered ESG investments, especially in light of the fact that some companies in industries traditionally thought to be inconsistent with ESG conscious investing are now trying to attract ESG investors (e.g. industrials, energy).
  • Fiduciaries are not required to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options. However, the consideration of such factors is not a presumed violation of a fiduciary’s duty of loyalty or prudence. Unlike the prior rule, which suggested that consideration of ESG factors could only be considered if all other pecuniary factors between competing investments were equal (the “tiebreaker” approach), the new rule allows a fiduciary to consider potential financial benefits of ESG investing in all circumstances.
  • Plan fiduciaries may take into account participant preferences in constructing a fund lineup. Therefore, if participants express a desire for ESG investment options, then it may be reasonable for plan fiduciaries to add ESG funds or to consider ESG factors in crafting the fund lineup.
  • ESG-centric funds may be used as qualified default investments (QDIAs) within retirement plans, reversing the prior outright prohibition on use of such funds as QDIAs.
  • In some situations, fiduciaries may be required to exercise shareholder rights when required to protect participant interests. It is unclear whether the exercise of such rights is only limited to situations that have an economic impact on the plan, or applies to additional situations. The clarification suggests that the exercise of proxy voting is not disfavored as an inefficient use of fiduciaries’ time and resources, as the prior iteration of the rule suggested.

Effective Date and Challenges to the Regulation

The new rule became effective in January 2023, except for delayed applicability of proxy voting provisions. However, twenty five state attorneys general have joined a lawsuit in federal court in Texas that seeks to overturn the regulation. The court is in the Fifth Circuit, which historically has been hostile to past Department of Labor regulations (including Obama-era fiduciary rules overturned in 2018, though the ESG rule is less far-reaching than the fiduciary rule and may survive a challenge even in the Fifth Circuit). Congressional Republicans have also introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) review proposal to repeal the regulation that has gained the support of Joe Manchin (D-WV). Although CRA actions are not subject to Senate filibuster rules, they are subject to presidential veto, which President Biden is sure to do if the repeal reaches his desk.

Action Steps

Employers should assume that the ESG rules will remain in effect and engage with plan fiduciaries, advisors, and employees and determine the extent to which ESG considerations should (or should not) enter into fiduciary deliberations when considering plan investment alternatives. Some investment advisors have already begun to include separate ESG scorecards for mutual funds and other investments in their regular plan investment reviews. Fiduciaries should also consider whether and how the approach that is ultimately taken should be reflected in the plan’s investment policy statement. Plans that delegate full control over investments to an independent fiduciary (an ERISA 3(38) advisor) should engage with their advisor to determine whether and the extent to which ESG considerations will be part of that fiduciary’s process, and whether that is consistent with the desires of the plan fiduciaries and participants.

Article By Alex H. Glaser and Timothy Brechtel of Jones Walker LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Jones Walker LLP

Employment-Based Immigration Updates for 2023

As we move deeper into the new year, the U.S. government continues to try to resolve the challenges facing the immigration system due to the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting processing backlogs. These challenges may still continue, but new changes and updates have already taken effect—and more will likely come in 2023, impacting employers and the decisions they make with regard to their foreign national employees. Below are several updates the U.S. government has already released that impact employment-based immigration processes.

USCIS Proposed Fee Increases

On January 4, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) proposed changes to its fees for certain types of cases. The changes to the fees are dramatic increases to some employment-based visa types and are in an effort to make up for funding shortages that have impacted USCIS. Proposed filing fee increases for the following employment-based visa types include:

  • H-1B: $460 to $780
  • H-1B registration fee: $10 to $215
  • L-1: $460 to $1,385
  • O-1: $460 to $1,055
  • Adjustment of Status Application (I-485): $1,225 to $2,820

As we previously reported, the proposed rule—which is in the public comment phase—also includes a change to the existing premium processing timeline. The timeline would increase from fifteen calendar days to fifteen business days.

Continued Expansion of Premium Processing

On May 24, 2022, USCIS implemented a phased approach to expanded premium processing service. In 2022, premium processing was expanded to I-140 petitions, and on January 30, 2023, premium processing will be available to all EB-1C multinational executive and manager and EB-2 National Interest Waiver petitions. The January 30 expansion will include new filings as well as upgrades on pending petitions.

USCIS’s next phase of premium processing expansion will apply to the following applications:

  • Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status
  • Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization

Foreign National Employees and RIFs

With changes in the U.S. economy and world markets, employers may start conducting reductions in force (RIF) to adjust to new budget goals. RIFs have the potential to impact foreign national employees. As we discussed in a recent podcast, employers may want to consider the potential impact of restructurings on workers who are in nonimmigrant status, those who are in the permanent residency process, and students working in F-1 status.

Equal Pay Transparency Laws

An increasing number of states and local jurisdictions—such as California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York State, New York City, Rhode Island, and Washington—have implemented equal pay transparency (EPT) laws that now require employers to make additional disclosures regarding offered salaries and/or benefits on job requisitions and postings. This will have a significant impact on the PERM process for green card applications in these jurisdictions by mandating employers list a salary or salary range on PERM and non-PERM recruitment materials. EPT laws vary across jurisdictions as to which types of postings or recruitment efforts will require additional information.

Nonimmigrant Visa Interview Waivers Extended Until December 31, 2023

In an effort to reduce visa wait times and processing backlogs at U.S. consulates, the U.S. Department of State has extended the authority of consular officers to waive in-person interviews for certain nonimmigrant categories through December 31, 2023.

Fiscal Year 2024 H-1B Cap Preparation

With the annual H-1B lottery just two months away, employers may want to consider the foreign national employees they plan to sponsor and enter into this year’s upcoming H-1B cap or quota process. The process will start with the initial registration period, which typically opens at the beginning of March and lasts for a minimum of fourteen calendar days each fiscal year (FY). USCIS will soon announce details about the FY 2024 H-1B registration period. If enough registrations are submitted, USCIS will conduct a random selection of the registration entries to determine who will be eligible to file H-1B petitions. If selected, the employers will have ninety days to file the H-1B petitions, starting April 1. So far, there have not been any changes in this process for this upcoming cycle.

Article By Awanti A. Damle of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more immigration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Mexico’s Minimum Wage Set to Increase on January 1, 2023

On December 1, 2022, Mexican President Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador announced that, unanimously, the business and labor sectors, as well as the government, had agreed to increase the minimum wage by 20 percent for 2023, which will be applicable in the Free Zone of the Northern Border (Zona Libre de la Frontera Norte or ZLFN), as well as the wage applicable in the rest of the country. The increase will become official when it is published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (Diario Oficial de la Federación).

Before the increase was determined, the Mexican National Commission on Minimum Wages (Comisión Nacional de los Salarios Mínimos, or CONASAMI) applied an independent recovery amount (Monto Independiente de Recuperación or MIR) in accordance with the following:

  • MIR for the ZLFN: MXN $23.68
  • MIR for the rest of the country: MXN $15.72

On top of the MIR, the CONASAMI approved a 10 percent increase from the 2022 rate to the daily minimum wage applicable to the ZLFN and the rest of the country, resulting in MXN $312.41 (approximately USD $16.11) for the ZLFN and MXN $207.44 (approximately USD $10.69) for the rest of the country. The new rates would be effective as of January 1, 2023.

The MIR and the 10 percent increase—combined—would represent a 20 percent increase in the daily minimum wage rate which translates to more than MXN $30 per day.

Finally, Secretary of Labor Luisa Maria Alcalde stated that the above increases would directly benefit 6.4 million workers in Mexico.

Article By Pietro Straulino-Rodriguez, Nora M. Villalpando Badillo, and Ana Paula Delsol Espada of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Five States Put Abortion Questions on the Ballot; Health Care and Other Employers Should Stay Tuned

In the wake of the landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, we have been closely monitoring legal developments across the country. In addition to well publicized “trigger laws” that were effectuated as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order, states have taken up a variety of legislative actions in response to the ruling, which placed authority for the regulation of abortion with the states.

On Election Day, five states will have voters consider various proposals in light of Dobbs and its directive that abortion law belongs with the people. Here is a run-down of abortion-related ballot initiatives that will be put to a popular vote on November 8, 2022.

A Constitutional Amendment for California

On the ballot in California is Proposition 1: Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom, which would amend the state Constitution at Article I, Section 1.1, to provide that the state cannot “deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.” Any amendment to the California Constitution requires a simple majority of voters. If the amendment is passed, changes take effect the fifth day after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote for the election.

Should Proposition 1 pass, it would add express protection for reproductive freedom, including decisions about abortion and contraception, to the state constitution, under its existing guaranteed right to privacy. If the proposition does not pass, it will not affect the status quo of reproductive rights in California: while current protections for abortion and other reproductive medical care would not be constitutionally guaranteed, they would remain in place under state law.

California currently has strong protections for the right to abortion, generally only prohibiting abortion at viability. Since the Dobbs decision earlier this year, California has promoted access to abortion, including launching abortion.ca.gov, a website dedicated towards providing information on reproductive health care services to people both inside and outside of California. Recently, in late September, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of 12 bills of abortion protections, aimed towards improving access to abortion and protecting patients and clinicians who undergo or provide them.

With the backdrop of an already-strong California legal reproductive health network, consistent polling indicates the ballot measure is expected to pass by a wide margin. Passage of the proposition will likely signal and establish the state as a refuge for individuals from more restrictive states seeking abortions.

Michigan May Modify its Constitution, Too

Michigan will also turn to its voters to decide whether its state constitution should be amended to include protections for abortion. The Michigan proposal, referred to as “Proposal 3 of 2022 – ‘Reproductive Freedom for All’ Petition,” seeks to protect the right to an abortion with a constitutional amendment that declares a right to reproductive freedom. The petition sets forth proposed language for a new section of the Michigan Constitution, stating, in part, that “[e]very individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.”

Proposal 3 would take effect 45 days following the ballot initiative if approved by the majority of voters. It would (1) establish new individual rights to reproductive freedom, to broadly include the right to make and carry out all decisions relating to pregnancy; (2) permit state regulation of abortion in limited circumstances; (3) forbid discrimination in enforcement of reproductive rights; (4) prohibit adverse action by the state with respect to “potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes;” and (5) invalidate state laws that conflict with the Constitution as amended by Proposal 3.

If Proposal 3 is not passed and the state constitution remains as is, the future of the right to an abortion in Michigan will be unclear. Michigan has a pre-Roe ban that, if enforced, would prohibit abortion in nearly all situations and make abortions in non-life saving circumstances potentially prosecuted as manslaughter. However, a Michigan Court of Claims judge granted a permanent injunction in Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s suit to block local prosecutors from enforcing the ban. The ban is subject to an ongoing lawsuit.

Given the uncertainty of the ballot initiative’s outcome, Michigan employers should closely monitor the results of the November 8, 2022 vote.

Vermont’s Vote

In Vermont, abortion remains legal after Dobbs under state law. However, on November 8, 2022, voters will have the opportunity to further protect abortion rights through a ballot initiative. This initiative, referred to as Proposal 5, asks registered Vermont voters whether they are in favor of amending the state’s constitution to add the following language: “That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” Passage would guarantee the right to access and obtain an abortion as well as other reproductive care, and prohibit government infringement of reproductive rights absent a compelling state interest, which would need to be achieved through the least restrictive means.

Should Proposal 5 pass, the resulting constitutional amendment is not expected to significantly alter the legal landscape of abortion in Vermont, which currently has strong protection for the right to abortion. If approved, the amendment will become part of Vermont’s constitution on November 22, 2022.

In Contrast, Kentucky Seeks to Constitutionally Exclude Abortion Rights

Kentuckians will cast their votes deciding whether to amend the state’s constitution to explicitly provide that the state constitution offers no protection for a right to abortion. The proposal further clarifies that there is no constitutional right to use public funds for abortion. “Constitutional Amendment 2” poses the following question to voters: “Are you in favor of amending the Constitution of Kentucky by creating a new Section of the Constitution to be numbered Section 26A to state as follows: ‘To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion?’”

If the majority of votes are affirmative, a new section will be added to Kentucky’s constitution. This does not constitute an outright abortion ban, but rather prohibits courts from finding an implicit right to an abortion within the state’s constitution. Kentucky laws restricting abortion, including those triggered by Dobbs, are among the most restrictive in the nation. Approval of Constitutional Amendment 2 would not alter these laws or their existing narrow exceptions, which permit the procedure only when necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother.

An advisory from the Kentucky Attorney General provides further color on the ramifications of the amendment, noting that Amendment 2 does not ban abortion, but rather ensures that elected officials of Kentucky’s General Assembly, and not courts, would regulate abortion. The Advisory also explains that implementation of Amendment 2 would not amend other provisions in the state’s constitution.

Montana’s Ballot – NOT a Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Abortion is currently legal in Montana, as a 1999 Supreme Court ruling held that the state constitution protects abortion under its right-of-privacy provision. However, in 2021, a number of restrictive abortion laws were enacted, including a law that prohibits abortions after 20 weeks. These laws are under legal challenge by abortion providers and are temporarily enjoined pending litigation.

Meanwhile, on the ballot for November 8 is a referendum on LR-131, also known as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The Act proposes a new statute that would classify any infant born alive as “a legal person” and require the provision of “medically appropriate and reasonable care” to such person. This would include all infants born alive from an induced labor, C-section, or attempted abortion. The Act also includes a provision mandating providers, employees, and volunteers to report a failure to comply to law enforcement, and sets forth criminal penalties. Violation of this law would be a felony with a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison or a fine of up to $50,000. The proposed law is aimed at health care workers, and does not impose liability on parents or other parties.

Health care providers have raised concerns that the broad language of the bill could lead to unintended consequences, particularly for OB/GYN practitioners. Health care providers would be required to take “medically appropriate and reasonable care” to keep any infant alive, but these terms are not defined in the bill. Health care workers that could be held liable include doctors, nurses, and “any individual who may be asked to participate in any way in a health care service of procedure.”

If approved by the Montana electorate, the law would take effect on January 1, 2023. Hospitals and other health care providers would need to reexamine their operating procedures to comply with the bill, should it pass, including compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement.

Keeping Up With The Changes

We continue to track litigation, legislative developments, and the entirety of the post-Dobbs legal landscape as it continues to shift. Our 50-state survey and other resources provide employers, health care providers, life sciences stakeholders, and others impacted by these rapidly changing circumstances with in-depth analysis and monthly updates. Election Day results will be another element of this evolving story.

Article By Susan Gross Sholinsky, Amy K. Dow, and Catherine Kang of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

An Updated Federal Overtime Rule: When’s It Coming?

Twice a year (in the spring and the fall), each federal agency publishes a “Regulatory Agenda” that discloses the proposal and final rules it has recently issued, together with those that it plans to issue.  Back in the fall of 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division noted in the agenda that it was reviewing the regulations for exemption of executive, administrative, and professional (“EAP”) employees from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime requirements codified in 29 C.F.R. Part 541.

One of the “primary goals” of the planned rulemaking is to update the minimum salary level requirement for employees who, by virtue of their duties, would qualify for an EAP exemption under section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA.  You may recall that in May 2016, the Obama DOL issued a new overtime rule, to take effect on December 1 of that year, that would have—among other things—required the DOL to update (i.e., increase) the salary threshold for EAP exemptions every three years.  In November 2019, before it could take effect, a federal judge in Texas enjoined the new overtime rule on a nationwide basis, declaring it “unlawful.”

In September 2019, the Trump DOL issued a new overtime rule, which took effect on January 1, 2020, raising the weekly minimum salary for EAP exemptions from $455 per week ($23,660 per year) to $684 per week ($35,568 per year).  The increase was the first in 15 years, but nowhere near the boost the Obama administration tried to roll out in 2016 (to $913 per week, or $47,476 per year).

Cut to the Biden administration.  The DOL noted in the fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda that “[r]egular updates [to the minimum salary for EAP exemption] promote greater stability, avoid disruptive salary level increases that can result from lengthy gaps between updates and provide appropriate wage protection.”  The agency listed a timetable for issuance of a proposed overtime rule update (a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRM) as April 4, 2022.  Seven months later, we’ve seen no proposed rule.

If and when issued, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.  (Back in 2016, the Obama DOL received more than 293,000 comments to its proposed overtime rule.)  Stay tuned.

Article By Allan S Bloom of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

OSHA Expands Criteria for Severe Violator Enforcement Program

In an announcement that expands the criteria for entry into the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Severe Violator Enforcement Program, OSHA has signaled that it is making enforcement a priority and that employers with willful, repeat, and failure-to-abate violations will be subject to significant consequences.

Key Takeaways

  • On September 15, 2022, OSHA announced that it was expanding its criteria for entering employers into its Severe Violator Enforcement Program (“SVEP”). The updated SVEP directive is available here.
  • Previously, entry into the program was limited to cases involving fatalities, three or more hospitalizations, high-emphasis hazards, the potential release of a highly hazardous chemical, and enforcement actions classified as egregious.
  • Now, an employer can be entered into the program in cases involving two or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations, regardless of the hazard involved. They will continue to be subject to entry in the program in certain cases involving fatalities, three or more hospitalizations, and enforcement actions classified as egregious.
  • In light of this expansion, employers should review their compliance records and current health and safety practices and consider whether further actions are needed to mitigate enforcement risks.

Background

In 2010, OSHA created the Severe Violator Enforcement Program to “concentrate[] resources on inspecting employers who have demonstrated indifference to their OSH Act obligations by willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate violations.” Under the original SVEP, OSHA would designate employers as “severe violators” if they were involved in an enforcement action:

  • Involving a fatality in which OSHA found one or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations;
  • Involving a catastrophe (three or more hospitalizations) in which OSHA found one or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations;
  • Involving a high-emphasis hazard in which OSHA found two or more high-gravity willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations;
  • Involving the potential release of a highly hazardous chemical in which OSHA found three or more high-gravity willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations; or
  • Classified by OSHA as “egregious.”

Employers entered into the SVEP were subject to consequences that included mandatory enhanced follow-up inspections, a nationwide inspection of related workplaces, negative publicity, enhanced settlement provisions, and the potential for federal court enforcement under Section 11(b) of the OSH Act.

Updated Criteria

Under the new criteria, employers will continue to be entered into the SVEP in enforcement actions involving a fatality or catastrophe in which OSHA found one or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate-violations and in enforcement actions classified as egregious.

In a departure from the original criteria, cases involving two or more high-gravity willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations will also be entered into the SVEP, regardless of whether they are linked to a certain hazard or standard. As a result of this change, OSHA expects that more employers will be entered into the SVEP.

Other Key Changes

In addition to expanding the criteria for entry into the SVEP, OSHA made key changes regarding follow-up inspections and removal from the SVEP.

  • Follow-up OSHA inspections must occur within one year, but not longer than two years after the final order. Previously, there was no required timeframe for conducting follow-up inspections.
  • Eligibility for removal will begin three years after the date an employer completes abatement. Previously, that period began running on the final order date.
  • If an employer implements an enhanced settlement agreement that includes the use of a safety and health management system that follows OSHA’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs, the employer can be eligible for removal after two years.

Implications

These changes signify that OSHA is prioritizing enforcement and intends to impose significant consequences on employers that repeatedly and/or willfully violate OSHA requirements. Employers should review their compliance records and current health and safety practices and evaluate whether additional action is needed to mitigate the risk for willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations and entry into the SVEP.

Article By Jayni A. Lanham and Mark N. Duvall of Beveridge & Diamond PC

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Beveridge & Diamond PC

The COVID-19 Change Order

During the pandemic it has become common for contractors to submit change orders to owners seeking reimbursement for COVID-19 related expenses and costs.  This is especially true for large construction projects.  These “COVID-19 Change Orders” seek reimbursement for everything from masks, dividers, hand sanitizer and other items required to follow and implement CDC guidelines (or to comply with state and local orders) for maintaining a safe work environment.  COVID-19 Change Orders also seek reimbursement for extended general conditions caused by having less workers on site because of social distancing requirements, lost time caused by shorter working hours, and lost time associated with CDC mandated hygiene breaks and temperature checks. On larger projects, COVID-19 Change Orders can escalate into millions of dollars and are often submitted without warning towards the end of a project when final completion and the payment of retainage are approaching.

For owners and contractors that are trying to complete their projects, many of which have been delayed or suffered from cost overruns, these unexpected COVID-19 Change Orders can be very problematic and hard to navigate.  Owners will argue that increased costs associated with the pandemic have affected all businesses, not just contractors.  Contractors will respond that these are real costs that they must pay to operate.  Often, the justification for reimbursement is not black and white because it is hard to find a specific contractual provision that addresses such an unprecedented situation, which causes uncertainty and strained relations between owners and contractors at the end of a project.

The justifications asserted for COVID-19 Change Orders vary from project to project and are sometimes asserted as an event of force majeure or more commonly as a general change in site conditions.  While many force majeure clauses expressly apply to acts of God, pandemics and government shutdowns, that is not the end of analyzing whether the clause applies.  While the application of a force majeure clause to these situations is highly dependent on the wording of such a clause, most require that performance be completely prevented and do not recognize commercial impracticability as a justification for delay.  There were a small number of projects that were shut down at the beginning of the pandemic by state and local orders in stricter jurisdictions, but for the most part complete shutdowns were uncommon because of various exceptions to such orders for businesses broadly defined as “essential.”  As the pandemic extended through late 2020, and into 2021, shutdowns became non-existent.  Finally, many force majeure clauses don’t allow for the reimbursement of costs for implementing required protective measures, they simply allow for an extension of the contract time.

As a result, many contractors have turned to other contractual provisions, such as language related to changes in site conditions or clauses related to change orders in general.  But prior to the pandemic these provisions were not drafted with this circumstance (a virus) in mind.  Instead, they usually apply to changes in “physical” conditions at the site that are specifically described, like subsurface conditions, otherwise concealed physical conditions or hazardous materials found at the site.   Making the argument that a virus is an unknown “physical” condition at the site can be a challenge since the virus is airborne, not necessarily part of the site itself and not unique to the site.  In addition, because many of these clauses require the approval of the owner or are only triggered by specific conditions, they may not support a unilateral change order.

Because of the ambiguity surrounding COVID-19 Change Orders, many owners will initially be reluctant to cover such reimbursements for their contractors.  Aside from the specific language in their construction contracts, Owners should consider other factors when deciding whether to reject, accept or partially accept COVID-19 Change Orders, including the risk of strained relations with its contractor, distractions at the project and the costs of a potential dispute with its contractor.  If there are remaining construction contingency funds available, and the project has otherwise run smoothly, the owner should consider offering all or part of it at the end of the project to avoid a dispute.  Likewise, contractors should be thoughtful and thorough when deciding whether to seek reimbursement for project costs associated with COVID-19, and make sure the costs at issue were necessary and can be verified.  Finally, if the contractor received government loans or payments because of the pandemic, including funds from the Paycheck Protection Program, it should strongly consider not seeking reimbursement from the owner.

Article By Richard F. Whiteley, Phillip L. Sampson Jr., and Stacianne M. Wilson of Bracewell LLP

For more coronavirus legal news updates, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Bracewell LLP

Abortion-Related Travel Benefits Post-Dobbs

Immediately following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson returning the power to regulate abortion to the states, a number of large employers announced that they would offer out-of-state travel benefits for employees living in states where abortion-related medical care is unavailable. Employers considering offering abortion-related travel benefits have several key considerations to keep in mind. The law currently allows health plans to provide reimbursement for travel primarily for and essential to medical care. Although this area of the law is evolving, employers with self-funded medical plans may amend their existing medical plans to provide abortion-related travel benefits while those with fully insured medical plans may face more obstacles in providing such benefits.

In Dobbs v. Jackson, an abortion clinic challenged a Mississippi law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions. In establishing the constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court restricted states in their ability to limit or ban abortions before viability of the fetus, or 24 weeks from the time of conception. In upholding the Mississippi law, the Supreme Court overturned Roe and held that the protection or regulation of abortion is a decision for each state.

Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota have already banned or made abortion illegal pursuant to trigger laws which went into effect as of the Supreme Court decision on June 24, 2022.  Also, a number of additional states are expected to soon have similar legislation in effect, either by virtue of expected legislative action or trigger laws with slightly delayed effective dates.  In response, a number of employers have announced that they will reimburse all or a portion of abortion-related travel expenses for employees in states where abortions are banned or otherwise not available.

Under Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, the definition of “medical care” includes transportation that is both “primarily for and essential to” the medical care sought by an individual. These types of travel benefits have historically been utilized in connection with certain specialized medical treatments, such as organ transplants.  However, Section 213(d) is not limited to particular types of procedures, and thus forms the framework for providing abortion-related travel benefits through existing medical plans.

Although Code Section 213(d) applies to both self-insured and insured medical plans, the substantive coverage provisions of insured medical plans will generally be governed by the state insurance code of the state in which the insurance policy is issued.  Coverage for abortion services or any related travel benefits may not be permitted under the insurance code of the state in which the policy is issued, or an insurer may not offer a travel benefit for such services even if permitted to do so.  Self-insured plans, by contrast, provide employers more flexibility in plan design, including control, consistent with existing federal requirements, over the types and levels of benefits covered under the plan. As noted above, existing plans may already cover travel-related benefits for certain types of medical procedures.

Employers with high-deductible health plans tied to health savings accounts (HSAs) will need to consider the impact of adding abortion-related travel benefits to such plans.  Travel-related benefits of any type would not appear to be eligible for first dollar coverage, and thus may be of minimal benefit to participants enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

Employers with fully insured medical plans that do not cover abortion-related travel benefits may be able to offer a medical travel reimbursement program through an integrated health reimbursement arrangement (HRA).  An integrated HRA is an employer-funded group health plan from which employees enrolled in the employer’s traditional group medical insurance plan are reimbursed for qualifying expenses not paid by the traditional plan.

Another potential option for employers with fully insured medical plans may be to offer a stipend entirely outside of any established group health plan. Such reimbursement programs may result in taxable compensation for employees who receive such reimbursements. Also, employers would need to be sensitive to privacy and confidentiality considerations of such a policy, which should generally be minimized if offered in accordance with the existing protections of HIPAA through a medical plan and under which claims are processed by an insurer or third-party administrator rather than by the employer itself.

Additionally, some state laws may attempt to criminalize or otherwise sanction so-called aiding and abetting actions related to the procurement of abortion services in another state.  This is an untested area of the law, and it is unclear whether any actions brought under such statutes would be legally viable.  In this regard, Justice Kavanaugh stated as follows in his concurring opinion in Dobbs:  “For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” (Kavanaugh Concurring Opinion, page 10.)  This is an area that will require continual monitoring by employers who offer abortion-related travel benefits.

Article By Thomas G. Hancuch, Philip L. Mowery, and Amal Rafiq of Vedder Price

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Vedder Price

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Roe and Casey: What This Decision Means for Employers

As many expected based on the draft opinion that was leaked months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the U.S. Constitution does not protect the right to obtain an abortion. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392 (June 24, 2022).

Dobbs overturns nearly 50 years of precedent from the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania v. Casey on the issue.

The impact of Dobbs will vary, as states are now at liberty to enforce and create abortion legislation without restrictions arising out of constitutional protections.

What does this mean for employers?

As pressure mounts on this issue, some employers may be considering what, if anything, they can or should do. Many states have enacted legislation that restricts individual abortion rights and potentially third parties who assist individuals who seek abortions. To the extent any state laws were not enforced because of the Court’s holding in Roe or Casey, states can move forward now to implement and enforce those laws.

Laws often referred to as “trigger laws,” those that are in place but unenforceable due to overriding federal restrictions, become enforceable once those federal restrictions are lifted. As a result of Dobbs, abortion-related “trigger laws” previously unenforceable can take effect, creating new standards for individuals and others that will redefine the national abortion law landscape.

Some existing state laws and trigger laws may affect employers and put employers at risk of violating state law if they implement policies to assist employees seeking an abortion or even continue to cover abortions under group health plans. For example, a state law may create liability for anyone who “aids or abets” a person who obtains an abortion. Employers also must be cognizant of how they apply their leave policies, who may seek accommodations based on a sincerely held religious belief, and whether certain provisions of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act apply to women who are seeking or who have had an abortion.

In addition, the Court’s ruling may affect employee benefit plans. Many employers are considering additional benefits for their employees, and their covered dependents, such as travel reimbursement for seeking an abortion outside of the local jurisdiction due to state law restrictions. There are many legal issues to consider in connection with the coverage of abortion-related services under employee benefit plans. (For additional guidance on the issue, see our article, Group Health Plan Considerations in the Face of (Potentially) Changing Abortion Laws.) Depending on how the state laws are enacted, there also may be issues with relying on ERISA preemption provisions to avoid these obligations.

Corporate management and directors should plan for changes and be aware of policies and fiduciary responsibilities. This can include preparing for public and employee reactions (for and against), legislative and law enforcement threats, social media posts, and other employee demonstrations. Pressure from a variety of groups to take a corporate public opinion also may occur.

Whether changes to leave policies, employee benefits, travel reimbursement, or handling accommodation requests, employers considering policies or benefit offerings in response to Dobbs must carefully review and consider federal and state laws, including state abortion-related legislation to evaluate the risk of potential liability.

Article By Patricia Anderson Pryor, Joy Napier-Joyce, Melissa Ostrower, and Tasos C. Paindiris of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022